ArticlePsychological research2020
Performance-informed EEG analysis reveals mixed evidence for EEG signatures unique to the processing of time.
Article in Psychological research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attention modulates the effects of stimulus brightness and contrast on time perception.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Common electrophysiological signatures of relative magnitude in both space and time.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Time for What? Dissociating Explicit Timing Tasks through Electrophysiological Signatures.eNeuro · 2024Article
- Near-optimal integration of the magnitude information of time and numerosity.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Certain EEG components (e.g., the contingent negative variation, CNV, or beta oscillations) have been linked to the perception of temporal magnitudes specifically. However, it is as of yet unclear whether these EEG components are really unique to time perception or reflect the perception of magnitudes in general. In the current study we recorded EEG while participants had to make judgments about duration (time condition) or numerosity (number condition) in a comparison task. This design allowed us to directly compare EEG signals between the processing of time and number. Stimuli consisted of a series of blue dots appearing and disappearing dynamically on a black screen. Each stimulus was characterized by its duration and the total number of dots that it consisted of. Because it is known that tasks like these elicit perceptual interference effects that we used a maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) procedure to determine, for each participant and dimension separately, to what extent time and numerosity information were taken into account when making a judgement in an extensive post hoc analysis. This approach enabled us to capture individual differences in behavioral performance and, based on the MLE estimates, to select a subset of participants who suppressed task-irrelevant information. Even for this subset of participants, who showed no or only small interference effects and thus were thought to truly process temporal information in the time condition and numerosity information in the number condition, we found CNV patterns in the time-domain EEG signals for both tasks that was more pronounced in the time-task. We found no substantial evidence for differences between the processing of temporal and numerical information in the time-frequency domain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.